You are here

Archived: HF Trust - Pound Lane - Herts and Essex DCA Good

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 September 2016

This inspection took place on the 21 and 26 July 2016 and was unannounced. Home Farm Trust Pound Lane Essex and Herts DCA provides accommodation and support in a residential environment for people with learning disabilities, some of whom may also have physical disabilities. HF Trust also provides a domiciliary care service where people with learning disabilities receive care and support in their own homes in the community.

At the time of our inspection there were 17 people living in the residential part of the service which was split across four separate cottages. There were also 25 people receiving personal care in their own homes.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were supported by staff who consistently displayed understanding, empathy and warmth in their interactions with people. People consistently told us and our observations confirmed that staff had developed meaningful relationships with people. Staff had an enhanced knowledge about the people they cared for and understood how to meet their needs because they had a genuine interest in getting to know the people they worked with. Feedback from people and their relatives about the care they received was exceptionally complimentary acknowledging the exemplary approach of staff. The kindness, thoughtfulness and approach from staff consistently exceeded people’s expectations of how they would be cared for and supported.

Staff were passionate about their job and highly motivated to provide consistently excellent care to people. Staff found ways to support people creatively and give people the support they needed in order to achieve their own personal aspirations. People spoke about the positive impact this has on the way they are cared for, and this was reflected in the feedback we received from people living in the service.

People were treated with dignity and respect and there was a genuine ethos that people should be treated as equals. People were treated in a dignified manner with regard to personal interactions with staff, as well as having their rights upheld, such as the right to a particular religious belief, or the right to get married.

People were safeguarded from harm as the provider had systems in place to prevent, recognise and report concerns to the relevant authorities. Staff were confident in recognising and raising concerns if they felt people were at risk.

Staff knew their responsibilities as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and had applied that knowledge appropriately. People were supported to make decisions for themselves and their consent was actively sought by staff.

There were sufficient numbers of experienced staff that were supported to carry out their roles to meet the assessed needs of people using the service. Staff received training in areas that enabled them to understand and meet the care needs of each person. Recruitment procedures protected people from receiving unsafe care from care staff unsuited to the role.

People’s care and support needs were continually monitored and reviewed to ensure that care was provided in the way that they needed. People had been involved in planning and reviewing their care when they wanted to.

People were supported to have sufficient amounts to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet. Staff monitored people’s health and well-being and ensured people had access to healthcare professionals when required.

People’s needs were met in line with their individual care plans and assessed needs. Staff took time to get to know people and ensured that people’s care was ta

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 September 2016

The service was safe.

People felt safe and staff were clear on their roles and responsibilities to safeguard them.

People received their care and support from sufficient numbers of staff that had been appropriately recruited and had the skills and experience to provide safe care.

People’s medicines were appropriately managed and safely stored.

Risks were regularly reviewed and, where appropriate, acted upon with the involvement of other professionals so that people were kept safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 September 2016

The service was effective.

People received care from staff that had the supervision and support to carry out their roles.

People received care from care staff that had the training and acquired skills they needed to meet people’s needs.

Care staff knew and acted upon their responsibilities as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and in relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 September 2016

The service was very caring.

People were consistently treated with outstanding kindness, respect and compassion.

Staff had an enhanced knowledge and understanding of people which was evident in their day to day interactions with the people that they supported. This meant that people’s needs and preferences were consistently fully met.

Staff respected people's individuality and encouraged them to maintain and develop their independence and to live the lives they wanted.

The exceptionally caring approach of staff consistently exceeded people’s expectations in relation to the care and support that they received.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 September 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were assessed prior to admission and subsequently reviewed regularly so that they received the timely care they needed.

People’s needs were met in line with their individual care plans and assessed needs.

Appropriate and timely action was taken to address people’s complaints or dissatisfaction with the service provided.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 September 2016

The service was well-led.

People’s quality of care was monitored by the systems in place and timely action was taken to make improvements when necessary.

People were supported by staff that received the managerial guidance they needed to carry out their roles.

There was a positive open, person centred culture.